Trouble logging in?If you can't remember your password or are having trouble logging in, you will have to reset your password. If you have trouble resetting your password (for example, if you lost access to the original email address), please do not start posting with a new account, as this is against the forum rules. If you create a temporary account, please contact us right away via Forum Support, and send us any information you can about your original account, such as the account name and any email address that may have been associated with it.

5? where do those come from? I mean, they have no experience in operating one, does anyone in his right mind will think suddenly getting 5 is good idea? These stuff are nothing but targets if you don't have the capable personnel to man them.

its really not about actually having 5 fully functional military ready aircraft carriers. it is about the pr of having 5 functional aircraft carriers. i doubt china actually expects to use them, the whole point is just to have them.

The first two would seem to be based on the ex-Soviet carrier Varyag (50,000-60,000 ton range), while the nuclear carriers might be in the 90,000 ton range (I don't know if that means they will be a lot larger, or if the nuclear reators will just make it a lot heavier). The refitted ex-Varyag should be doing her sea trials sometime this year.

Note that the Chinese governement has acquired four aircraft carriers for study in the last 25 years. The Australian HMAS Melbourne and the ex-Soviet carriers Minsk, Kiev and Varyag.

The PLAN (The People's Liberation Army Navy) has 26 destroyers and 51 frigates they could use for escorts for their future carriers. They have no cruisers, but then American cruisers are more or less destroyers other than in fuction.

(Reuters) - The United States has won a "dramatic victory" in a dispute with the European Union over government support for aircraft manufacturers, the chairman of Boeing said on Thursday.

A new World Trade Organization ruling shows that Boeing has received far less government aid than what was found for Airbus in a previous WTO ruling, Boeing Chairman and President Jim McNerney said at the U.S. Export-Import Bank's annual conference.

"This was a dramatic victory for clarifying the rules of engagement for developing countries as they start developing products like aircraft," McNerney said.

"We're very hopeful that that will help us with the Chinese, as they start supporting their efforts."

The first two would seem to be based on the ex-Soviet carrier Varyag (50,000-60,000 ton range), while the nuclear carriers might be in the 90,000 ton range (I don't know if that means they will be a lot larger, or if the nuclear reators will just make it a lot heavier). The refitted ex-Varyag should be doing her sea trials sometime this year.

Note that the Chinese governement has acquired four aircraft carriers for study in the last 25 years. The Australian HMAS Melbourne and the ex-Soviet carriers Minsk, Kiev and Varyag.

The PLAN (The People's Liberation Army Navy) has 26 destroyers and 51 frigates they could use for escorts for their future carriers. They have no cruisers, but then American cruisers are more or less destroyers other than in fuction.

They're larger, with a potential airwing to match. A Nimitz class can carry 80 or 90 aircraft, though they typically carry less for a variety of reasons. The Varyag can carry 40-50 aircraft. It's also fitted with a ski jump rather than a catapult like the Nimitz, meaning aircraft need to operate with a lighter combat load than the same type of plane would with a catapult launch. Though it also means less stress on the airframes and not having to worry about a mechanical failure seriously impacting your flight operations. It also somewhat makes up for its smaller airwing with missile armaments.

One needs to remember that while both carriers, they were designed for different purposes. The US carriers are for power projection, to sail into a trouble spot with an airwing larger than most nation's entire airforce. The soviet carriers were designed mainly to prevent the US from using that power projection in event of war in Europe and disrupting SLoC. The soviet carriers were intended to give air cover to the ship itself while it engages a US carrier group with long range missiles. The US carriers see the aircraft they carry as the primary strike platform. As such one must wonder if it really fits into China's strategic goals. Though if they plan on using it just to get used to flight operations, we'll need to see what kind of domestic design they come up with. Though that's they're building carriers based on the Varyag seems to indicate that they think it does.

It has not be confirmed if the new carriers will follow the Soviet carrier's ski ramp design or if hey will go with a flat deck. Depend on the aircraft they intend to use.

If also might be that the first three carriers will be for use in local waters or maybe even for covering operations around Taiwan (if they dare), while the two nuclear carriers will be for force projection into the Pacific. Perhaps to engage American forces farther away from Chinese waters...or even to engage in offensive operations (or relief efforts like the American carriers do in peace time).

They have been practicing flight operations for some time now and will gain experiance with the Varyarg before they finish their own home built carriers. Much like the Americans gained experiance with the Langley for a small number of years before the Lexington and Saratoga were completed.

I seem to recall some article about a new carrier-killer missile the Chinese are developing. I also recall the speed and range of the Americans new railgun system. From an armchair wargaming perspective, that seems like an interesting matchup.

This is what happens when you don't encourage people to enterprise, and you let bigger companies buy up the smaller ones to consolidate market share.

__________________

When three puppygirls named after pastries are on top of each other, it is called Eclair a'la menthe et Biscotti aux fraises avec beaucoup de Ricotta sur le dessus.
Most of all, you have to be disciplined and you have to save, even if you hate our current financial system. Because if you don't save, then you're guaranteed to end up with nothing.

(Reuters) - U.S. employment recorded a second straight month of solid gains in March and the jobless rate fell to a two-year low of 8.8 percent, marking a decisive shift in the labor market that should help to underpin the economic recovery.

Nonfarm payrolls rose 216,000 last month, the largest increase since May, the Labor Department said on Friday. January and February employment figures were revised to show 7,000 more jobs than previously reported.

The strong job gains come amid indications the economy suffered a minor setback early in the year as bad weather and rising energy prices dampened activity.

"All the evidence is pointing to a strengthening labor market," said Bill Cheney, chief economist at John Hancock Financial Services in Boston.

While the report indicated sufficient underlying strength in the economy to cushion it against the impact of high energy prices, it was not strong enough to discourage the Federal Reserve from its ultra-easy monetary policies.

Policymakers at the U.S. central bank are, however, debating whether they should start considering withdrawing some of their massive economic stimulus.

The private sector accounted for all the new jobs in March, adding 230,000 positions after February's 240,000 increase. Government employment fell 14,000, declining for a fifth straight month as local governments let go 15,000 workers.

Although rising energy prices -- boosted by unrest in the Middle East and North Africa -- are eroding consumer confidence, economists do not expect businesses to put the brakes on hiring just yet.

"Employment gains have been modest in recent months, so in that sense I think businesses that were initially very wary of taking on permanent full-time employees are feeling more confident now than was case some months ago," said Richard DeKaser, an economist at Parthenon Group in Boston.

"As a result they are more willing to make those kinds of long-term commitments."

UNEMPLOYMENT RATE DIPS

The strengthening labor market tenor was also underscored by the unemployment rate, which dipped to 8.8 percent, the lowest since March 2009, from 8.9 percent in February.

The jobless rate, which is derived from a survey of households, has dropped 1.0 percentage point since November, mostly reflecting employment gains rather than a rise in the number of discouraged workers.

It could start rising as the improving employment picture coaxes those who have given up the search for work to re-enter the labor market.

"It is always possible that as the job market improves, people will start looking again and the unemployment rate could go up," said John Hancock's Cheney. "But the normal pattern is once it starts coming down as rapidly as it has over the last few months, it keeps on going down."

The jobless rate is one of the factors that could determine the timing of the Fed's first interest rate hike since it cut overnight lending rates to near zero in December 2008.

The central bank last month described the labor market as improving gradually and dropped a reference it had used in a statement in January to employers remaining reluctant to add to payrolls.

The economy has recovered a fraction of the more than 8 million jobs lost in the recession. Economists say job growth of between 250,000 and 300,000 a month is needed to have a sizable impact on the pool of 13.5 million unemployed Americans.

That will probably keep the Fed sidelined for a while.

"There still remains significant slack in the labor market," said Millan Mulraine, senior macro strategist at TD Securities in New York. "Given the high levels of unemployment and the fact that the duration of unemployment is still unacceptably high, the Fed will remain on the sidelines at least for the next year before they start contemplating tightening monetary policy explicitly."

The Fed is expected to complete its $600 billion government bond-buying program, which ends in June.

Employment in March was concentrated in the private services sector, which added 199,000 jobs. Payrolls in the goods-producing industries rose 31,000, but manufacturing employment growth slowed to 17,000 from 32,000 in February.

The construction industry dipped 1,000 after rising 37,000 in February.

The employment report also showed the average work week steady at 34.3 hours and average hourly earnings flat.

This means that the average work week is 3-4 days. Does this sound like long-term or short-term employment to you?

This article looks like a red herring, if not a straw man.

__________________

When three puppygirls named after pastries are on top of each other, it is called Eclair a'la menthe et Biscotti aux fraises avec beaucoup de Ricotta sur le dessus.
Most of all, you have to be disciplined and you have to save, even if you hate our current financial system. Because if you don't save, then you're guaranteed to end up with nothing.

AP Business Writer Pallavi Gogoi in New York contributed to this report.

But yeah, that AP article really sounds downright stupid and senseless - it looks like something written by the KCNA instead.

__________________

When three puppygirls named after pastries are on top of each other, it is called Eclair a'la menthe et Biscotti aux fraises avec beaucoup de Ricotta sur le dessus.
Most of all, you have to be disciplined and you have to save, even if you hate our current financial system. Because if you don't save, then you're guaranteed to end up with nothing.

When three puppygirls named after pastries are on top of each other, it is called Eclair a'la menthe et Biscotti aux fraises avec beaucoup de Ricotta sur le dessus.
Most of all, you have to be disciplined and you have to save, even if you hate our current financial system. Because if you don't save, then you're guaranteed to end up with nothing.

According to the report, a single worker needs an income of $30,012 a year — or just above $14 an hour — to cover basic expenses and save for retirement and emergencies. That is close to three times the 2010 national poverty level of $10,830 for a single person, and nearly twice the federal minimum wage of $7.25 an hour.
A single worker with two young children needs an annual income of $57,756, or just over $27 an hour, to attain economic stability, and a family with two working parents and two young children needs to earn $67,920 a year, or about $16 an hour per worker.
That compares with the national poverty level of $22,050 for a family of four. The most recent data from the Census Bureau found that 14.3 percent of Americans were living below the poverty line in 2009.

Welcome to the now entrenched plutocracy of US, Inc. where less than .01% are not the "peasants".

I'm having trouble equating the two though...
1) Burn an organized stack of paper of which there are many many copies.
2) Slaughter human beings.

I'm pretty sure the decades worth of built up hatred for anything that even looks Western factored somewhere in there too, aswell as the intensely sacred view of the Muslim Holy Book. Plus they already burned the American flag quite a few times.